The September 2, 2010 Michelle O'Connell homicide coverup lives on, as deeply conflicted State's Attorney RALPH JOSEPH LARIZZA's office seeks Court orders to prohibit criminal defense lawyer cross-examination of Ms. O'Connell's ex-boyfriend, St. Johns County Sheriff's Deputy JEREMY BANKS. In a Motion in Limine filed in a criminal case, State's Attorney LARIZZA's office requested that Judge Howard Maltz ban the defense attorney from ever asking any questions about the investigation of the September 2, 2010 homicide of Ms. Michelle O'Connell in BANKS' home with BANKS' service weapon, which had no DNA on it, despite his having worn it at work that day.
Deeply conflicted is a mild understatement. During 2010-2011, LARIZZA's criminal investigators, Robert Hardwick and James Parker, considered BANKS the only suspect. Then after some five months, LARIZZA recused himself, resulting in appointment of special prosecutor BRADLEY KING, whose son was later hired by Sheriff DAVID SHOAR, and KING listed SHOAR as the number one reference when KING applied for a seat on our Florida Supreme Court. (Hardwick is now St. Augustine Beach Police Chief and a member of the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission).
There was no written response to the State's Motion in Limine by defense counsel and no hearing held and no order signed by Judge Maltz. No cross-examination was needed of BANKS, whose apparently truthful testimony helped keep the State of Florida from railroading a criminal defendant into a burglary conviction (16 year sentence) instead of a trespass conviction (60 day sentence), as found recently by a six-person jury.
However, the Motion in Limine raises policy issues. Why is our estimable State's Attorney trying to keep jurors from ever learning about the background of a prosecution witness? Why would the State's Attorney care if a deputy is asked questions> The maudlin motion asks the Court to "prohibit the Defense in any trial in this cause to introduce into evidence any and all testimony regarding the death of Michelle O'Connell and/or the investigation of the same." Calling it "irrelevant," LARIZZA's emotional motion says such testimony "does not go to any witness' credibility, or bias, and is so extraneous that to allow the Defense to elicit such information and present it to the fact-finder would be a miscarriage of justice."
In the event that Deputy JEREMY BANKS' testimony is ever challenged and a defense lawyer wants to ask him about Michelle O'Connell, the Motion in Limine LARIZZA filed won't hold water. The motion says it would be "so unfairly prejudicial to the State as to warrant exclusion under the Florida Rules of Evidence." No specific rule is cited. No case law is provided.
From the context, observers believe that this same motion is probably filed in every case where BANKS is a potential witness. It asks the judge to exclude any testimony re: Michelle O'Connell case!
Although the motion is unadorned by any citation to any law, it is an attempt to invoke the "balancing test" in Florida Rule of Evidence 403, which says:
90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.
Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 6, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379.
IF Banks ever testifies in a case where his testimony might actually hurt the criminal defendant, I believe the motion would likely be DENIED under Rule 403 -- Banks' credibility would be an issue, and Rule 403 requires that the probative value be "substantially outweighed" by "the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
If you ever hear of anyone ever contesting a motion in limine re: Banks and Michelle's case, please let me know.
In light of Banks' federal lawsuit against Special Agent Rusty Ray Rodgers, I thought you might find this intriguing.
Still seeking answers:
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Slavin
To: larizzar
Sent: Fri, Sep 8, 2017 4:35 pm
Subject: Request No. 2017-543: Motions in Limine in Cases Where Jeremy Banks is a Witness
No comments:
Post a Comment